:a-v: 


<^  .'j~o:o 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    bTPro^  TST^  .  VNo  CA  A\  <2j  V  A  ,^  -T 
Division .^^rr.TrrV-.^ 


4  c).  VA].  CV\<9\ry^oS/r-v5. 

YIII. 
EDITORIAL  :N^0TES. 

THE  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS. 

In  the  year  1850,  Dean  Stanley  published  an  article  in  the  Edin- 
burg  JReview,  in  which  he  said  that  the  Church  of  England  was  "  by 
the  very  condition  of  its  being  neither  High  nor  Low,  but  Broad." 
By  this  term  he  meant  simi)ly  to  denote  the  comprehensiveness  of  the 
Church  as  embracing  all  the  different  sides  of  spiritual  truth.  But 
the  phrase  soon  came  to  be  used  as  denoting  a  succession  of  teachers 
who  differed  alike  from  the  Evangelical  school  of  Simeon  and  Milner, 
and  from  the  Anglo-Catholic  revival  known  as  Tractarianism,  and  were 
sometimes  called  Liberals.  The}-  did  not  form  a  school,*  nor  did 
they  have  any  central  ralljing  point,  yet  though  each  stood  for  him- 
self alone,  their  combined  influence  gave  a  theological  trend  that  was 
distinctly  marked,  and  very  far-reaching.  It  might  not  be  easy  to 
formulate  Broad  Church  principles  into  a  system,  yet  their  general 
character  can  be  easily  inferred  from  the  men  who  are  usually  con- 
sidered to  be  the  representatives  of  the  tendency. 

First  among  these  is  Frederick  D.  Maurice  (1805-1872),  who,. 
from  a  Unitarian,  became  a  Churchman,  and  who,  as  chaplain  and 
professor,  exerted  a  wide  influence,  not  only  by  his  books  which  had 
a  winning  eloquence,  but  still  more  by  his  personal  intercourse,  which 
was  particularly  kind  and  gracious.  There  was  a  vagueness  in  many 
of  his  views  which  prevents  one  from  classifying  him  with  precision, 
yet  the  general  character  may  be  deduced  from  one  position  :  ''  Every 
man  is  in  Christ;  the  condemnation  of  ever}'  man  is  that  he  will  not 
own  the  truth — he  will  not  act  as  if  it  were  true  that  except  he  were 
joined  to  Christ  he  could  not  think,  breathe,  live  a  single  hour."  No 
regeneration  is  required,  for  "  man,  as  man,  is  the  chikl  of  God.  He 
does  not  need  to  V)ecome  a  child  of  God,  he  needs  only  to  rccognizo 
the  fact  that  he  already  is  such."  Cmaiu.es  Kinmjsi.kv  (1819-1875), 
the  well-known  rector  of  Erushaw,  was  greatly  influenced  by  Mau- 
rice.    Although   an   earnest    and    most    successful    parisii    worker, 

♦  In  a  volume  just  issued  from  the  press,  the  Rev.  II.  R.  Ilaweis  says  :  "  Wo 
are  sometimes  twitted  with  'the  Broad  Cluirch  have  no  Party.'  That  is  our 
glory  and  our  strcngtli.  Principles,  not  Parties,  should  be  written  on  the  Broad 
Church  banner.  The  love  of  truth  belongs  to  no  party  ;  the  study  of  history.iB 
monopolized  by  no  sect." 

31 


482  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Kinp^sley  never  became  well  grounded  in  theology.*  His  great  con- 
tention was  that  the  world  is  God's  world  and  not  the  devil's,  and 
that  manliness  is  compatible  with  godliness,  but  he  urged  these  in 
such  a  way  as  to  throw  into  the  shade  the  divine  majesty  and  justice, 
to  emphasize  Christ's  example  more  than  His  sacrifice,  and  to  give 
prominence  to  those  things  which  led  many  to  speak  of  him  as  advo- 
cating "  muscular  Christianity."  His  views  were  set  forth  in  ser- 
mons, poems  and  novels,  and  became  widely  known.  Diflferent  from 
these  two,  yet  like  them  in  general  tendency,  was  F.  W.  Robertson, 
of  Brighton  (1816-1853),  who  was  trained  in  the  strictest  Evangelical 
school  and  3'et  gradually  veered  round,  giving  up  one  point  after 
another  till  he  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  only  sure  thing  was, 
^'  It  is  right  to  do  right."  He  was  a  man  of  very  bright  mind,  forcible 
speech,  and  a  generous  nature.  He  was  able  to  illumine  any  subject 
he  touched,  to  reach  the  profoundest  depths  of  the  spiritual  life,  and 
to  set  forth  truth  with  the  freshness  of  creative  genius.  But  his 
abilities  all  tended  to  attract  followers  to  his  views  of  baptism  and 
the  atonement,  and  his  advanced  Liberalism.  His  admirable  personal  ^ 
traits  lent  their  attractiveness  to  his  crude  and  shifting  theology. 
Scarcely  any  of  his  sermons  were  published  until  after  his  death,  but 
their  circulation  has  been  enormous,  not  only  in  Great  Britain  but 
throughout  the  English-speaking  world,  and  nowhere  more  general  and 
continuous  than  in  our  own  country.  Even  more  influential  than  he 
was  the  late  Dean  Stanley  (1815-1885),  remarkable  for  his  mastery 
of  English  prose,  his  historic  imagination,  and  the  vivid  pictures  he 
drew  of  Biblical  events  and  of  the  rise  and  growth  of  Christian  in- 
stitutions. His  doctrinal  views  widely  diverged  from  the  consensus 
of  Protestantism.  He  seems  to  have  held  only  to  a  modal  trinity. 
Infant  baptism,  instead  of  being  a  proof  of  depravit}^,  was  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  good  in  human  nature  ;  the  atonement  of  Christ  expressed 
merel}'  His  sublime  self-sacrifice  ;  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity  was 
substituted  for  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  eternity  of 
future  punishment  was  denied ;  and  the  love  of  God  was  urged  as  if 
it  swallowed  up  His  justice. 

Now  the  opinions  of  these  men  and  their  followers  were  never 
■organized  into  a  system,  nor  did  they  constitute  a  school,  but  they 
created  a  trend  or  tendency  which  left  its  mark  ver}-  distinctly  upon 
the  Anglican  Church.  There  came  to  be  an  impatience  of  dogma,  a 
disregard  of  traditional  authority,  an  endeavor  to  omit  or  obscure 
the  supernatural  element  of  religion,  a  constant  exaltation  of  the 
ethics  of  the  Gospel  at  the  expense  of  its  doctrines,  and  a  deprecia- 
tion of  all  creeds  as  the  remnants  of  a  worn-out  scholasticism  or  of 
exploded  philosophies.  These  views  gained  a  large  following  in 
England,  and  to  some  extent  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country. 
They  were  widely  circulated  in  volumes,  essays,  reviews,  poetry-  and 

*  Only  ten  years  before  his  death  he  was  still  seeking  instruction  from  Maurice 
on  such  a  fundamental  truth  as  the  Trinity. 


TUB  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  OP  PROFESSOR  BRIG  OS.      483 

fiction  ;  and  as  the}'  had  a  certain  attraction  in  their  profession  of 
freeing  the  spirit  from  the  bondage  of  the  letter,  of  rescuing  Scrip- 
ture from  the  yoke  of  tradition,  and  of  cherishing  an  enlarged  spirit 
of  comprehensiveness,  they  diffused  themselves  quite  extensivel}-  in 
various  communions.  The  degree  to  which  they  had  spread  in  the 
Presbj-terian  Church  was  not  suspected  by  an}-  one  until  the  question 
of  revising  the  Standards  was  introduced.  Then  the  discussions  in 
many  Presbyteries  showed  that  the  views  of  Broad  Church  theology 
had  penetrated  into  unexpected  quarters.  One  instance  will  suffice. 
The  majority  of  a  committee  appointed  b}-  one  Presljytcr}'  on  the 
subject  reported  in  favor  of  a  revision,  "in  such  form  as  to  bring 
the  Creed  into  more  complete  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God,  and 
likewise  abreast  of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  b}'  eliminating  from  it-  the 
harsh,  repellant,  and  un-Scriptural  dogmas,  as  stated  in  the  third 
chapter  of  the  Confession,  of  God's  predestination  of  all  of  the  non- 
elect  children  of  men  to  everlasting  torments,  and  by  substituting  a 
declaration  of  God's  abundant  provision  for  the  salvation  of  all  men." 
The  loose  talk,  the  extravagant  assertions  of  man}-  of  the  participants 
in  these  discussions  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  the  spread  of  the 
so-called  Broad  Church  movement,  pervading  the  atmosphere  and 
insensibly  modifying  the  views  even  of  those  who  had  been  trained 
under  much  sounder  influences.  The  moral  fibre  of  the  soul  became 
l^erceptibh'  weaker.  The  unchanging  authority  of  the  law,  the  dread- 
ful guilt  of  sin  and  its  tremendous  penult}',  and  the  absolute  sover- 
eignty of  grace  were  kept  in  the  background,  while  the  universal 
fatherhood  of  God,  the  importance  of  character,  the  ethics  of  the 
Gospel,  and  especially  its  humanitarian  side,  were  dwelt  upon  with 
emphasis. 

These  things  have  been  apparent  for  some  time,  but  it  is  only  within 
the  present  year  that  the  so-called  Broad  Churchism  has  manifested 
itself  in  the  Chair  of  a  Theological  Seminary.  The  Inaugural  Address 
of  Prof.  Briggs  is  a  startling  evidence  of  the  degree  to  which  the 
favorite  speculations  of  the  present  age  have  affected  the  tone  of  theo- 
logical education.  The  formal  subject  of  the  Address  is  'I'lio  Author- 
ity of  Holy  Scripture,  to  which  due  homage  is  })ai(l,  but  immediately 
we  are  told  that  there  are  three  fountains  of  divine  authority — the 
Bible,  the  Churcli  and  the  Reason,  and  although  it  is  nowhere  said 
that  those  are  equiiJoUont,  this  is  the  plain  implication  of  the  whole 
discussion.  Yet  it  ought  to  be  stated  that  subsequently  Dr.  Ihiggs 
distinctly  stated  that  he  did  not  coordinate  these  sources  as  t'(iual. 
Still  he  represents  them  as  so  many  independent  Avays  of  fimling  God. 
Newman  is  cited  as  one  who  found  God  through  the  Church,  Martincau 
as  one  who  found  Him  "enthroned  in  his  soul,"  and  Spurgeon  as  one 
who  l)uilt  "his  faith  and  life  on  the  divine  authority  contained  in  the 
Scrii)tures  ;"  and  we  are  told  tliat  the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian 
world  would  not  assign  the  last  mentioned  a  higher  place  in  the  king- 
dom of  God  than  Martineau  or  Newman.    That  is  to  say,  an  Evangel- 


484  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

ical  believer,  who  has  been  the  means  of  the  conversion  of  very  many 
thousands,  is  no  more  acceptable  to  God  than  a  pervert  to  Romanism, 
or  a  pronounced  Unitarian  who  denies  the  genuineness  of  all  the  New 
Testament  save  six  of  Paul's  epistles,  and  rejects  native  depravity, 
the  incarnation,  vicarious  redemption  and  Christ's  second  coming  for 
judgment  as  the  growth  of  a  mythical  literature.  "  Each  in  his  own 
way  found  God  and  rested  on  divine  authority."  Has  the  learned 
Professor  forgotten  the  assurance  of  James  (ii.  19)  in  respect  to  the 
demons,  that  they  also  have  found  God,  i.  e.,  "  believe  and  shudder?" 
The  novelty  of  Dr.  Briggs'  position  is,  we  suppose,  unquestionable, 
no  accredited  author  among  the  Reformed  having  ever  put  the  Scrip- 
ture even  apparently  or  inferentially  upon  the  same  plane  with  reason 
and.  the  Church  as  a  means  of  arriving  at  the  knowledge  of  God.  The 
reason,  in  its  best  form,  being  that  of  a  fallen  being,  cannot  possibly 
reach  ultimate  truth,  or  determine  the  existence  of  one  or  more 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  possibility  of  the  incarnation,  or  the  fact 
or  the  method  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  And  the  Church  being  com- 
posed of  imperfectly  sanctified  men  cannot  be  a  sufficient  guide.  It 
is,  indeed,  indefectible  finally,  the  promise  of  God  and  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  giving  assurance  that  faith  shall  not  utterly  fail,  but 
this  is  quite  consistent  with  the  fact  that  at  times  the  great  body  of 
believers  has  gone  very  far  astray,  and  that  even  now  the  Romanist 
and  the  Protestant  sections  differ  widely  on  very  important  points. 
How,  then,  is  it  possible  to  put  these  three  sources  of  authority  on  the 
same  level  ?  The  answer  suggested  by  the  address  is  that  religion 
consists  in  the  recognition  of  God  and  dependence  upon  divine  author- 
ity. On  this  basis  comprehension  is  easy,  only  one  wonders  how 
Mohammed  came  to  be  excluded  or  omitted.  The  Koran  is  full  of 
references  to  the  divine  Being,  and  everything  is  traced  up  to  His 
will.  Theism  is  the  most  pronounced  feature  of  the  Moslem  faith,  and 
if  this  entitles  its  sincere  holders  to  a  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
on  earth  and  in  heaven,  the  false  prophet  and  his  followers  cannot 
consistently  be  shut  out.  Indeed,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  any  can 
be  excluded  save  railing  infidels  or  determined  agnostics.  Such  liber- 
alism, or  comprehensiveness  as  it  maybe  called,  will,  of  course,  find 
many  admirers  among  the  worldly-minded  or  unspiritual  and  among 
those  whose  religion  is  a  philosophy,  but  it  repels  devout  students  of 
the  Word.  Charity  is  a  lovely  Christian  grace,  but  its  mantle  may  be 
stretched  till  it  tears.  A  prophet  of  old  pronounced  a  woe  upon  them 
that  call  evil  good  and  good  evil,  that  put  darkness  for  light  and  light 
for  darkness  (Is.  v.  20). 

But  the  author  of  the  Address  is  not  content  with  indirectly  de- 
grading the  Bible  by  lowering  its  claims  to  an  equality  with  the  voice 
of  reason  and  the  Church,  but  proceeds  directly  to  assail  the  Book 
and  its  authority.  This  is  done  with  more  ingenuity  than  ingenuous- 
ness by  representing  it  as  barricaded  by  formidable  breastworks 
which  "  the  scholastics   and   ecclesiastics   of    Protestantism "  have 


THE  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIO 08.      485 

erected  in  order  to  keep  men  from  access  to  the  living  waters,  in  this 
showing  themselves  faithful  followers  of  the  post-Bil)lical  Jews  who 
made  a  fence  about  the  law,  and  so  enclosed  it  with  interpretations 
and  applications  that  ultimately  the  commandments  of  men  took  its 
place.  So  successful  have  been  these  modern  scholastics  that  the 
learner  is  required  to  force  his  way  and  "  storm  the  barriers  of  eccle- 
siasticism."  This  sounds  very  formidable,  but  when  we  come  to  learn 
what  these  barriers  are,  we  become  suddenly  enlightened.  The  first 
one  is  superstition  in  the  form  of  Bibliolatry,  a  very  singular  charge 
to  come  from  a  professor  of  Biblical  theology.  The  meaning  of  this 
accusation  is  not  explained,  for  it  can  hardly  be  limited  to  the  few 
who  use  the  book  as  a  kind  of  Sortes  Vergilianse.  The  reference  must 
be  to  those  who  regard  the  Book  as  holy,  because  of  its  author,  its 
contents  and  its  character  ;  but  to  denounce  this  as  superstitious*  is 
to  use  words  without  meaning.  But  how  is  this  a  barrier?  All  Pro- 
testants (save  those  whom  Dr.  Briggs  represents)  consider  the  Book 
to  be  holy,  but  at  the  same  time  insist  upon  the  right  and  the  duty  of 
all  men  to  search  the  Scriptures  so  that  their  faith  may  not  rest  in 
the  wisdom  of  men  but  in  the  power  of  God.  All  the  rhetoric  in  the 
world  cannot  transform  this  position  into  a  frowning  battlement  as 
repellant  as  the  fortifications  of  Strasburg.  Another  "  barrier "  is 
the  dogma  of  verbal  inspiration.  This  dogma  is  generally  held 
among  the  Reformed  as  contained  in  the  utterance  :  "  The  Bible  is 
God's  Word  written  by  man,"  the  twofold  authorship  extending  to 
every  part  of  the  volume.  The  human  writers  were  so  guided  that 
what  they  wrote  has  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority.  It  is  true 
that  the  Scripture  faithfully  translated  into  another  language  has  a 
powerful  voice,  but  this  is  because  the  primitive  text  bears  so  plainly 
the  divine  signature.  Dr.  Briggs  sa3-s  of  the  claim  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  verball}'-  inspired,  that  it  "  is  not  found  in  the  Bible  itself  or 
in  any  of  the  creeds  of  Christendom."  Yet  b}^  the  confession  of  Dr. 
Ladd  it  "  has  doubtless  been,  on  the  whole,  most  generally  prevalent " 
in  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  the  advocates  of  ple- 
nary inspiration  build  more  upon  the  assertions  of  the  Word  itself 
than  upon  any  other  ground.  Take,  for  example,  the  utterance  of 
the  apostle  (1  Cor.  ii.  13):  "Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in 
words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Spirit  teacheth.'' 
But  how  does  this  come  to  be  a  barrier  ?  Surely  it  is  easier  for  a 
l)lain  man  to  get  the  sense  of  Scripture  if  he  holds  it  all  to  bo  simply 
the  Word  of  God  tlum  if  in  each  case  he  must  ''  force  his  way  through 
the  language  and  the  letter,  the  gr.inunar  ami  the  style,  to  the  inner 

*  Prof.  n.  B.  Smith  on  this  point  was  of  a  very  dilferent  opinion.  Hear  him  : 
"  Light  and  life  come  from  tlie  ministry  of  tlie  Word  Its  hallowed  sayings  are 
our  stay  when  all  other  support  tails  ;  our  rock  amid  the  billows  ;  the  songs  of 
our  pilgrimage  ;  thf  jiledgc  of  our  tlnal  rest.  Such  implicit  faith  may  he  stigma- 
tized as  Hihliolatry  ;  hut  where  else  can  we  go  to  find  tlie  words  of  eternal  life? 
Bibliolatry  clings  to  the  letter;  siiirituality,  in  the  letter,  finds  the  spirit,  and 
dares  not  disown  the  letter  whicii  guided  to  the  spirit." 


486  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

substance  of  the  thought."  It  is  Prof.  Briggs  who  constructs  a  che- 
i;a«a:-(Ze-/rise  around  the  Bible,  and  not  the  traditional  Church  view. 
The  latter  leaves  things  so  plain  that  the  wayfaring  men,  j^ea  fools, 
shall  not  err  thei'ein,  but  the  former  requires  men  to  approach  the 
book  with  a  catapult,  if  not  a  siege  train. 

A  third  "  barrier  "  is  found  in  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures. 
All  the  evidence  on  this  point  which  has  been  carefully  sifted  and 
established  by  the  toil  of  scholars  in  past  centuries  is  scornfully 
scouted  as  "  floating  traditions,"  and  the  argument  founded  on  it  is 
held  to  be  reasoning  in  a  circle.  But  to  what  purpose  is  such  empty 
rhetoric  ?  According  to  the  usual  methods  men  are  invited  to  deter- 
mine the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  writings  just  as  they  do  that  of 
any  other  ancient  writings.  No  fence  is  erected  around  them,  but  the 
acknowledged  principles  of  historical  criticism  are  applied,  and  the 
result  is  satisfactory.  Having  ascertained  that  these  writings  are 
what  they  profess  to  be,  the  record  of  a  divine  revelation,  faith  rests 
iipon  the  testimony  of  Him  whom  they  disclose.  But  this  does  not 
satisfy  Dr.  Briggs.  He  says  that  the  "  Higher  Criticism  has  forced  its 
way  into  the  Bible  itself  and  brought  us  face  to  face  with  the  holy 
contents,  so  that  we  may  see  and  know  whether  they  are  divine  or 
not ;"  or,  as  he  elsewhere  declares,  it  is  by  divina  fides  that  we  know 
the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God.  But  what  a  mighty  barrier  he  thus 
erects  across  the  path  of  sinful  man  1  The  only  way  for  him  to  find 
out  the  truth  about  the  Bible  is  to  believe  with  a  true  faith  what  it 
says.  And  the  author  of  this  wretched  sophism  charges  other  folks 
with  reasoning  in  a  circle  I  The  mystical,  unsound  and  revolutionary 
character  of  Dr.  Briggs'  theory  has  been  abundantly  shown  else- 
where.* It  is  enough  to  remark  that  in  his  effort  to  "  remove  obstruc- 
tions that  have  barred  the  way  of  literary  men  from  the  Bible,"  he  has 
put  an  impassable  obstacle  in  their  way,  and  shifted  the  authenticity 
of  Scripture  from  its  natural,  reasonable  and  adequate  basis  to  a  vague 
mysticism,  as  unreal  and  flighty  as  any  Phrygian  Montanism.  He  tells 
us,  moreover,  that  it  is  "  the  certain  I'esult  of  the  Higher  Criticism  that 
a  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,"  nor  did  Isaiah  "half  of  the 
book  that  bears  his  name,"  nor  Solomon  the  Song  of  Songs ;  and  David 
wrote  only  a  few  of  the  Psalms.  This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  con- 
fident, not  to  say  arrogant,  tone  that  pervades  the  Address.  Ex- 
tremely questionable  conclusions,  resting  upon  tenuous  arguments, 
and  controverted  by  scholars  as  able  as  those  who  put  them  forth,  are 
gravely  announced  as  "  certain." 

The  fourth  "  barrier "  is  Inerrancy.  Dr.  Briggs  says  that  this 
claim  drives  men  from  the  Bible,  whereas,  in  fact,  where  it  repels  one 
it  attracts  a  hundred.  Men  like  something  on  which  they  can  depend, 
whereas  to  tell  them  that  "  there  are  errors  in  Scripture  that  no  one 
has  been  able  to  explain  away,"  undermines  confidence.  How  are 
they  to  distinguish  the  truth  from  the  error?     Under  the  pretext  of 

*  Dr.  McPheeters  in  the  Presbyterian  Quarterly,  January,  1891. 


THE  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS.      487 

demolishing  a  barrier,  Dr.  Briggs  has  constructed  one  of  very  serious 
character.  He  puts  a  dangerous  weapon  into  the  hands  of  the  adver- 
saries of  the  Gospel,  And  that  without  any  reason.  He  indeed 
says,  "  The  Bible  nowhere  makes  this  claim  ;''  but  for  ages  the  con- 
trary has  been  the  common  opinion  of  believers.  Our  Lord  said, 
"  The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken ;"  and  the  Apostle  Paul  said, 
"  Every  Scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in  righteousness" 
(2  Tim.  iii.  16),  where  the  connection  plainly  shows  that  the  writer 
was  referring  to  the  entire  Old  Testament.  This  assertion,  and  the 
kindred  one  of  the  Apostle  Peter  (2  Pet.  i.  21),  and  the  method  in 
which  appeal  is  made  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  to  the 
authority  of  the  Old,  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  Professor's 
views,  which  are  wonderfully  lax  and  vague.  It  is  not  easy  to  see 
how  any  old-fashioned  believer  can  accept  his  theory  for  a  moment. 
He  would  limit  inspiration  "  to  the  essential  contents  of  the  Bible,  to 
its  religion,  faith  and  morals,"  while  all  else  is  remitted  to  the  cate- 
gory of  "  circumstantials."  Has  the  Professor  ever  heard  the  maxim, 
Falsus  in  uno,  falsus  in  omnibus  ?  Is  it  any  more  ditficult  to  guard 
from  error  in  historical  or  geographical  details  than  it  is  in  doctrines  ? 
And  if  it  once  be  admitted  that  there  are  errors  in  the  Bible,  is  it 
not  open  to  any  inquirer  w^hen  confronted  with  a  distinct  Scripture 
utterance  to  insist  that  such  utterance  is  one  of  the  mistakes  of  the 
sacred  penmen  ?  No  doubt  Prof.  Briggs  would  vehemently  and 
sincerely  deny  the  justice  of  any  such  course,  but  it  is  none  the  less 
certain  that  it  Avould  be  taken,  and  that  the  faith  of  man}'  in  the 
divine  Word  would  be  utterly  dissipated.  It  should  be  added  here 
that  Dr.  Briggs  distinctly  affirmed  to  the  directors  of  the  Seminary 
his  belief  that  "  the  Bible  is  inerrant  in  all  matters  concerning 
faith  and  practice,  and  in  everytning  in  which  it  is  a  revelation  from 
God  or  a  vehicle  of  divine  truth,  and  that  there  are  no  errors  which 
disturb  its  infallibility  in  these  matters,  or  in  its  records  of  the  his- 
toric events  and  institutions  with  which  they  are  inseparably  con- 
nected." Still  the  Address  remains,  and  to  all  appearance  is  not 
retracted. 

A  fifth  "  barrier  "  imagined  by  tlie  author  is  the  claim  that  miracles 
violate  the  laws  of  nature,  a  claim  which  estranges  men  of  science. 
But  of  late  3'ears  this  form  of  defining  a  miracle  has  been  generally 
abandoned,  and  therefore  the  presenting  of  it  now  is  an  anachronism. 
Still  it  really  appears  as  if  the  evidential  value  of  miracles  as  imme- 
diate acts  of  divine  power  were  surrendered  by  Dr.  Briggs,  who  says 
that  nothing  would  he  lost  could  we  explain  the  miracles  of  Jesus 
from  His  use  of  mind-cure,  or  hypnotism,  or  any  other  occult  power. 
But  this  runs  counter  to  the  universal  convictions  of  the  race  as  ex- 
pressed by  Nicodomus,  when  he  said  to  the  Master,  "  No  man  can  do 
these  signs  that  Thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him;"  and  it  sets 
aside  the  declaration  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Himself,  "though  ye  believe 


488  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

not  me,  believe  the  works  "  (Jno.  x.  38).  The  presence  of  the  super- 
natural is  the  great  fact  in  Scripture,  and  this  is  the  gravamen  of  scien- 
tific unbelievers.  Prof.  Briggs  is  playing  into  their  hands  when  he 
reduces  mighty  works  to  a  category  of  nature,  and  makes  them  signs 
of  loving  purpose  and  tenderness  and  grace,  but  not  of  divine  power. 
He  destroys  what  has  alwaj^s  been  a  buttress  of  the  faith,  and  at  a 
fearful  cost  gains  a  suffrage  which,  when  thus  gained,  is  of  no  account. 
It  is  the  presence  of  God  in  nature  and  over  nature  to  which  unbe- 
lieving scientists  object.  To  them,  immediate,  divine  causation  is  a 
barrier,  but  it  is  one  due,  not  to  the  invention  of  theologians,  but  to 
the  will  of  God  and  the  necessities  of  the  case.  Without  this,  reli- 
gion is  impossible,  and  revelation  lacks  its  strongest  support.  Prof. 
Briggs  may  give  it  up,  and  suppose  that  he  has  obviated  the  diffi- 
culties of  modern  science,  but  still  that  which  Peter  said  at  Pentecost, 
"  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  by  mighty  works  and 
wonders  and  signs  which  God  did  by  him,"  will  stand  forever  as  the 
expression  of  the  testimony  by  which  Jesus  is  accredited  as  the  Son 
of  God,  the  promised  Saviour  of  men.  Attacks  upon  the  miracles 
from  within  the  Church  have  often  been  made  during  the  present 
centur}',  but  they  have  not  succeeded  in  persuading  the  advocates  of 
the  truth  to  give  up  their  evidential  value.  Nor  will  Prof.  Briggs 
have  any  greater  success. 

The  sixth  and  last  "  barrier  "  is  found  in  the  claim  that  prophecy  is 
minutely  fulfilled.  Now,  it  is  very  true  that  manj^  predictions  have 
been  wrongly  interpreted,  and  that  often  a  fulfillment  has  been  supposed 
where  it  did  not  exist.  But  how  few  and  feeble  are  these  compared 
with  the  great  bod}^  of  foretellings  which  occur  in  Scripture  in  regard 
to  the  Messiah,  the  Jews,  Nineveh,  Babylon,  Egypt  and  T^'re,  etc., 
and  which  form  a  sure  basis  of  faith  ?  Dr.  Briggs  quotes  from  Kuenen 
some  very  strong,  nay,  extravagant,  expressions  in  regard  to  the  fail- 
ure of  prophecies,  but  says  nothing  in  reference  to  the  other  and  very 
different  class  we  have  just  referred  to.  The  whole  passage  leaves  the 
painful  impression  that  the  author  has  yielded  to  the  Broad  Church 
notion  that  the  predictive  element  in  prophecy  does  not  exist ;  that 
the  Scripture  seers  were  only  men  of  elcA'ated  genius  and  quickened 
apprehensions  ;  and  that  their  utterances  were  simply  a  far-seeing  fore- 
cast of  what  might  in  the  ordinary  course  of  Providence  be  expected 
to  occur.  We  do  not  charge  this  upon  Dr.  Briggs,  but  only  hold  that 
what  he  says  and  what  he  omits  to  saj'  are  best  accounted  for  on  this 
supposition.  But  he  finds  space  to  refer  at  length  to  Jonah  as  a  case 
of  unfulfilled  prophecy ;  yet  on  what  possible  ground  can  the  embassy 
of  Jonah  be  explained  save  upon  the  notion  that  he  was  the  bearer  of 
a  conditional  threat  ?  One  singular  remark  is  that  the  last  verse  of 
the  Book  of  Jonah  contains  a  gospel  "  of  heathen  salvation,  unnoticed 
save  by  Zwingli  and  a  few  Anabaptists  and  heretics  "  and  Dr.  Briggs. 
That  is,  because  God  sent  a  prophet  to  NineAeh,  and  upon  the  repent- 
juice  of  the  people  spared  them,  therefore  He  will  spare  the  heathen 


THE  INAUGVRAL  ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIO  OS.      489 

world  to  whom  no  prophet  comes,  and  who,  for  that  reason,  do  not 
repent.  We  submit  that  no  book  of  logic  contains  a  clearer  example 
of  non  sequitur.  Nor  does  such  an  example  of  Biblical  theology  war- 
rant any  high  hopes  of  what  is  to  come  from  the  new  chair  established 
in  Union  Theological  Seminary. 

Having  finished  his  discussion  of  "  the  barriers,"  the  author,  in  tlie 
most  amusing  manner,  represents  himself  as  having  cleared  the  way 
so  that  "  no  man  hereafter  may  be  kept  from  the  Bible,"  and  then  pro- 
ceeds to  speak  of  two  hosts,  "  one,  the  defenders  of  traditionalism, 
trembling  for  the  ark  of  God  ;  the  other,  the  critics,  a  victorious  army, 
determined  to  capture  all  its  sacred  treasures."  The  former  he  calls 
'■'■  self-constituted  defenders,"  but  is  he  not  equally  a  self-constituted 
assailant?  Does  he  hold  a  brief  from  heaven  to  attack  and  abuse 
what  generation  after  generation  of  the  godly  have  held  dear  and 
sacred  ?  He  claims  that  criticism  has  broken  up  a  monopol}'  of  the 
Word  of  God,  so  that  now  "  it  is  open  to  all  mankind  without  con- 
ditions." Was  there  ever  a  more  preposterous  assertion  ?  What  free- 
dom exists  now  that  did  not  exist  a  hundred  years  ago  ?  It  is  true 
that  Churches  still  require,  nor  is  it  likely  that  they  will  ever  cease  to 
require,  their  ministers  and  their  theological  professors  to  subscribe  a 
specific  creed  ;  but  no  man  is  compelled  to  serve  in  either  capacity.  If 
he  dislikes  the  creed  he  can  refuse  to  accept  the  i)osition,  or  having 
accepted  he  can  resign.  The  one  thing  which  he  cannot  do  with  any 
degree  of  honor  or  honesty  is  to  hold  the  position  and  then  attack 
the  creed,  to  the  defense  of  which  it  is  committed.  The  adherents  of 
the  old  views  are  not  trembling  for  the  ark  of  God,  for  they  have 
seen  that  ark  often  captured  by  foes  or  betrayed  by  professed  friends, 
yet  in  the  end  it  was  victorious ;  but  they  do  tremble  for  the  audacious 
men  who,  upon  the  pretext  of  removing  humanly  made  obstacles, 
imdermine  the  foundations  of  faith  ;  they  tremble  for  the  young  and 
unthinking  who  may  be  f:\tally  misled  by  the  pretensions  so  arrogantly 
and  scornfully  put  forth.  It  is  easy  to  sow  doubt  and  suspicion  of 
the  authority  of  Scripture,  but  it  is  hard,  very  hard,  to  remove  these 
noxious  weeds  from  the  soil  where  they  have  once  taken  root.  The 
worst  injury  that  can  l)e  done  to  any  man  is  to  impair  his  confidence 
in  that  Word  which  is  a  lamp  unto  his  feet  and  a  light  unto  his  path. 
Just  at  this  point  begins  a  course  which  often  leads  to  the  utter  wreck 
of  the  soul.  Hence  the  alarm  which  Dr.  Briggs'  incautious  utterances 
have  created.  They  will  go  where  no  refutation  will  follow  them,  and 
will  lead  to  results  from  which  we  are  sure  he  himself  would  turn  away 
in  dismay  and  horror. 

Part  III  of  the  Address  is  devoted  to  Bihlical  TlieoI()gy.  and  begins 
with  a  very  clever  synopsis  of  the  theoplianies  and  institutions  of  the 
Old  Testament.  In  treating  of  God  we  are  told  that  Israel  learned 
only  by  degrees  that  Go«l  was  the  God  of  all  the  earth,  whereas  this 
truth  runs  through  the  narrative  from  beginning  to  end,  nor  is  any- 
thing  more   sophistical   than    the    argumentation  by  wliich  Kuenen 


490  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

and  others  seek  to  show  that  ethical  monotheism  did  not  become 
dominant  in  Israel  until  the  eighth  century  B.C.  Dr.  Briggs  calls 
mercy  "  the  favorite  attribute  of  the  Old  Testament,"  but  he  does  not 
prove  it,  nor  can  he.  Justice  is  and  must  be  just  as  dear  to  God  as 
love.  Any  failure  in  either  would  argue  imperfection.  The  author 
quotes  passage  after  passage  to  show  the  divine  mercy,  but  omits 
to  quote  the  expressions  of  God's  righteousness.  He  says,  "the 
greatest  of  the  theophanies  granted  to  Moses  was  in  order  to  reveal 
God  as  the  gracious,  compassionate,  the  long-suffering,  abounding  in 
mercy  and  faithfulness  "  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7);  but  he  omits  to  give  the 
rest  of  the  passage,  which  is  essential  to  the  full  comprehension  of  its 
meaning,  "  And  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty  ;  visiting  the 
iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  and  upon  the  children's 
children."  And  so  with  his  other  Scripture  references.  In  them  or 
hard  by  them  are  equally  strong  statements  of  God's  punitive  recti- 
tude. And  yet,  Dr.  Briggs,  after  citing  passages  of  only  one  class, 
goes  on  to  berate  men  for  not  pursuing  his  superficial,  one-sided 
course.  It  is  a  curious  Biblical  theology  which  takes  no  notice  of 
God's  manifestation  of  His  character  in  the  Deluge,  the  plagues  of 
Egypt,  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites,  the  repeated  overthrows 
of  Jerusalem.  We  contend,  despite  all  the  Professor's  warmth  and 
eloquence,  that  the  old  theologians  give  a  far  more  correct  and  Scrip- 
tural and  winning  account  of  God  than  he  does.  Like  Queen  Elizabeth, 
he  would  have  the  picture  painted  without  shadow.  It  is  the  back- 
ground of  Jehovah's  absolute  righteousness  on  which  alone  can  a  true 
portrait  be  made  of  His  tenderness  and  love.  The  Professor  seems  to 
think  he  has  made  a  discovery,  when  really  he  has  only  been  aping  the 
partial  and  misleading  statements  that  sciolists  have  been  in  the  habit 
of  making  from  the  beginning,  Neglecting  to  emphasize  the  divine 
holiness,  he  runs  the  fearful  risk  of  degi'ading  God's  wondrous  grace 
into  mere  good  nature  without  any  ethical  element. 

In  treating  of  the  Doctrine  of  Man,  it  is  said  that  "  Jew  and 
Christian  alike  exaggerate  the  original  innOcenc3^"  What  a  mon- 
strous assertion !  We  are  told  in  Genesis  that  God  created  man  in 
His  own  image,  and  then  that  he  "  saw  everything  that  He  had  made, 
and  behold,  it  was  very  good."  Can  it  be  possible  to  exaggerate 
innocence  so  described?  But  the  trouble  with  the  Professor  is  that 
this  view  "  conflicts  with  ethical  and  religious  philosophy."  Suppose 
it  does;  are  we  to  surrender  the  plain  statements  of  Scripture  at  the 
demand  of  philosophy  ?  and  is  this  the  Biblical  Theology  which 
Union  Seminary  proposes  to  teach  ?  In  the  pages  that  follow  there  is 
a  very  careless  use  of  language.  "  Redemption,"  it  is  said,  "  compre- 
hends the  whole  nature  of  man,  his  whole  life  and  the  entire  race." 
There  is  a  sense  in  which  this  is  true,  the  sense,  no  doubt,  held  by  the 
revered  Henry  B.  Smith,  whose  words  are  quoted  in  a  foot-note. 
Every  member  of  the  race  is  affected  by  the  redemptive  economy,  and 
to   every   man  to   whom  the  Gospel   conies   its   offers  are  sincerely 


THE  INAUOUEAL  ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS.      491 

addressed.  Xor  does  any  theologian  that  we  know  of  hold  that 
only  a  minority  of  the  race  will  be  finally  saved.  The  general 
opinion  is  that  only  a  very  small  minority  will  be  lost.  But  the 
language  of  the  Address,  being  without  limitation  or  qualifica- 
tion, seems  to  us  well  adapted  to  mislead.  Under  the  next  head 
we  are  told,  as  if  it  were  a  novelty,  that  redemption  "  comprehend* 
the  whole  process  of  grace."  We  have  yet  to  see  any  accredited 
system  of  theology  among  the  Reformed  that  holds  a  diff'erent  view. 
This  is  not  the  case  with  the  next  point  the  Professor  makes,  the 
extension  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  the  middle  state.  It  is 
asserted  with  unspeakable  hardihood  that  "  progressive  sanctification 
after  death  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  Church  "  (p.  54).  We 
assert,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  is  not  a  word  in  all  Scripture  in 
favor  of  this  view,  but  much  against  it.  And  it  is  directly  in  the  face 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  (xxxii,  1),  which  says  that  at  death  the 
souls  of  the  righteous  are  "made  perfect  in  holiness."  Nearly  all 
Protestants  agree  that  there  is  a  private  judgment  after  death,  and  to 
the  believer  an  immediate  and  transforming  vision  of  Christ,  but  Dr. 
Briggs  tells  us  that  these  are  "  conceits  derived  from  the  ethnic 
religions,"  which  is  certainly  not  the  case.  The  truth  is  that  they 
seem  inconsistent  with  his  philosophy,  and  therefore  are  surrendered. 
That  these  views  "  cut  the  nerves  of  Christian  activity,  and  striving 
after  sanctification  "  is  a  grievous  misstatement,  one  that  is  contra- 
dicted by  all  the  experience  of  saints  for  many  generations.  In  the 
concluding  article  of  this  part,  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  election,  but  an 
'election  of  love  (does  anybody  teach  an  election  of  hate?);  and  dis- 
tinctly affirms  that  some  will  be  unredeemed  and  lost,  but  assigns  as 
one  of  the  causes  of  this  fact,  their  "  descending  into  such  depths  of 
demoniacal  depravity  in  the  middle  state," — from  which  it  would  seem 
that  their  case  is  not  decided  in  this  world,  but,  in  part  at  least,  de- 
pends upon  what  they  do  between  death  and  judgment,  which  is  so 
near  the  doctrine  of  a  second  pi'obation  (which  the  Professor  distinctly 
disavows)  that  the  words  should  not  have  been  written.  Indeed, 
this  is  a  just  complaint  against  the  whole  inaugural,  that  it  skirts  the 
dividing  line  between  truth  and  error  so  nearly,  that  often  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  just  where  the  author  stands  and  how  his  words  are  to  be 
understood. 

The  Address  begins  the  statement  of  Biblical  Ethics  by  calling  it 
"  the  fruitage  of  theology,  the  test  of  all  the  rest,"  which  is  certainly 
a  novelty,  though  it  agrees  with  the  Broad  Church  character  of  the 
author's  other  notions.  He  thinks  the  people  of  Israel  have  been 
depreciated  as  remarkable  for  unfaithfulness  and  apostasy,  while  ho 
maintains  that  they  were  "faithful  in  the  main,  ever  advancing," 
herein  differing  from  the  protomartyr  Stephen,  who  said  to  the 
representatives  of  the  nation,  "  Ye  stiff-necked  and  uncircumcised  in 
heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost :  as  your  fathers 
did,  so  do  ye  "  (Acts  vii.  51).    But  the  most  singular  thing  in  this  part 


492  THE  PRE8BTTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

of  the  Address  is  the  agreement  with  the  erratic  Count  Tolstoi  in 
taking  literall>-  the  precepts  given  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  All 
sane  interpreters  of  all  schools,  from  the  beginning,  concur  in  the  opin- 
ion that  Christ's  words  must  be  interpreted  by  common  sense  and  His 
own  conduct  (John  xviii.  22)  and  that  of  Paul  (Acts  xxiii.  3),  but  Dr. 
Briggs  says  that  "  we  bur}-  the  sublime  ideal  in  a  fictitious  and  tem- 
porary explanation."  Then,  of  course,  all  war,  all  resistance  of  vio- 
lence, all  refusal  to  give  or  lend  whatever  is  asked,  is  sinful,  and 
society  is  reduced  to  chaos.  "What  are  we  to  think  of  such  a  travestj" 
of  our  Lord's  teaching  ?  In  regard  to  the  Messiah,  Dr.  Briggs  says 
that  ver}'  much  is  j-et  to  be  learned,  since  His  descent  ad  Inferos, 
His  resurrection,  enthronement,  reign  of  grace  and  second  advent 
have  been  "  neglected."  One  might  well  ask  what  has  been  the  extent 
of  the  Professor's  reading  that  he  makes  such  a  charge.  But  he 
encourages  us  with  the  thought  of  the  new  light  that  is  to  break  forth 
upon  the  Christian  world  under  "  the  inductive  stud}^  of  the  Word," 
such  light  as  is  to  make  all  past  attainments  of  the  Church  seem  "  a 
small  theolog}'."  The  toil  of  eighteen  centuries,  the  labors  of  the 
Fathers,  the  Schoolmen  and  the  Reformers,  the  results  of  long  contro- 
versies, the  creeds  born  in  the  fires  of  persecution,  all,  all  are  to  be 
eclipsed  by  the  illumination  that  comes  from  the  new  method  set  forth 
in  this  Address.  Persons  who  have  seen  two  generations  pass  away 
ma}'  be  excused  for  recalling  similar  high-sounding  promises  accom- 
panied by  a  great  flourish  of  trumpets,  which,  however,  ended  in 
shame  and  confusion  of  face. 

The  Address  concludes  with  some  remarks  upon  the  Harmony  of 
the  Sources  of  Divine  Authority,  Reason,  the  Church  and  the  Bible. 
These,  he  insists,  if  we  take  away  human  conceits  and  follies,  are, 
always  have  been  and  always  will  be,  harmonious.  All  are  needful, 
and  none  can  be  safely  ignored.  Yet,  according  to  the  Professor's 
own  examples  given  in  the  opening  of  his  Address,  the  harmony  is 
secured  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  very  important  truth.  Mr.  Spurgeon 
may  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  what  is  called  the  Evangelical 
school,  but  Cardinal  Newman,  who  regarded  the  Church  as  the  seat  of 
authority,  rejected  what  Mr.  Spurgeon  considered  as  the  heart  of  his 
system,  while  Dr.  Martineau,  following  what  he  supposed  to  be  the 
guidance  of  Reason,  denounced  what  both  the  others  held  to  be  vital. 
This  surely  does  not  look  like  that  happy  reconciliation  on  the  thresh- 
old of  which  Prof  Briggs  thinks  that  we  are.  Nor  is  it  reasonable  to 
expect  it.  Of  course  every  intelligent  believer  feels  quite  sure  that 
his  faith  is  entirely  rational,  but  this  is  quite  a  different  proposition 
from  one  that  affirms  that  the  human  Reason,  "  trained  and  strained 
to  the  uttermost,  and  rising  to  the  height  of  its  energies,"  can  of  itself 
reach  ultimate  and  fundamental  truth  in  religion.  If  it  could,  where 
would  be  the  need  for  a  revelation  ?  Or,  are  we,  in  the  face  of  the 
Church  of  all  ages,  to  confound  the  distinction  between  natural  religion 
and  revealed,  and  maintain,  with  one  of  the  early  English  deists,  that 
the  Gospel  is  simply  a  republication  of  the  Law  of  Nature?    Dr.  Brisrgs 


THE  INAUGUItAL  ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIQGS.      498 

says  that  he  "  rejoices  at  the  age  of  Rationalism,"  which  is  very  sin- 
gular  language  in  the  mouth  of  a  Christian  teacher,  for  Rationalism  is 
always  understood  to  stand  opposed  to  Supernaturalism,  and  to  deny 
the  essential  facts  of  the  Christian  fiiith.  He  would  doubtless  say 
that  he  intends  by  the  term  only  the  sober,  careful  use  of  reason  in 
its  appropriate  sphere.  But  this  is  not  what  many  readers  would  get 
from  his  language,  and  that  he  should  allow  himself  to  speak  in  such 
ambiguous  terms  is  a  serious  drawback  upon  his  claims  as  a  religious 
teacher. 

No  one  who  has  any  personal  acquaintance  with  the  author  of  this 
Inaugural  Address  will  for  one  moment  doubt  his  entire  sincerity  and 
good  faith.     He  firmly  believes  in  the  truth  of  the  positions  he  has 
laid  down  and  in  their  entire  harmony  with  the  Westminster  Stand- 
ards.    Where  others  see  a  wide  chasm  between  his  views  and  that  of 
the  Confession  or  Catechisms  he  sees  none  at  all,  and  expresses  him- 
self accordingly.     Nor  is  this  greatly  to  be  wondered  at.     It  is  not 
uncommon  for  men  in  any  branch  of  science  to  fix  their  gaze  so  ear- 
nestly upon  one  side  of  a  truth  as  to  forget  that  there  is  any  other. 
This  occurs  with  especial  frequency  in  cases  where  the  matter  in  hand 
is  theological,  where  there  is  an  unusually  wide  range  of  thought  and 
inquiry.     The  Professor  thinks  he  has  been  called  to  perform  a  sort 
of  iconoclastic  work,  cutting  down  everything  that  is  dead  and  harm- 
ful, and  removing  every  incumbrance  out  of  the  way  for  a  new  life. 
But   he   has    said   nothing  that  has   not  been  said  before,   only   in 
previous  cases  it  was  said  by  those  who  stand  outside  the  evangelical 
pale.     He  has  simply  fallen  a  prey  to  the  Zeitgeist.     He  has  been 
borne  along  by  the  tide  which  has  been  steadily  rising  for  half  a  cen- 
tury.    He  has  yielded  to  the  movement  which  seeks  to  relax  the 
demands  of  the  Christian  faith,  to  do  away  the  offense  of  the  cross 
and  to  win  men  by  paring  off  the  sharp  points  of  dogma.     Standing 
inside  the  Church  and  holding  a  prominent  position  in  a  seminary  of 
high  character,  he  has  borrowed  the  thoughts  and  the  language  of 
known  errorists,  and  made  a  great  stir  by  reproducing  them  after  a 
fashion  of  his  own.     They  are  paraded  as  the  result  of  a  fresh  and 
independent  study  of  the  divine  Word,  from  which  great  things  are 
justly  to  be  expected. 

Now  it  is  very  true  that  the  Scriptures  are  inexhaustible  and  that 
every  generation  will  draw  fresh  streams  from  this  overflowing  foun- 
tain, but  surely  it  is  presumption  to  expect  "  a  different  conception 
in  every  department  of  theology  "  from  the  inductive  studies  carried 
on  at  the  end  of  the  nineteentli  century.  Have  the  toils  of  all  the 
students  of  past  ages  been  so  fruitless  ?  Has  God  given  over  his 
Church  to  be  the  sport  of  caprice  ?  Has  nothing  been  settled  during 
eighteen  centuries?  Is  the  amazing  consensus  uf  the  Clunvhes  of 
the  Reformation  to  be  counted  for  naught  ?  But  in  truth,  as  has  been 
said,  the  Professor  has  discovered  nothing.  What  he  considers  new 
truths  are  simply  old  errors.  The  only  real  novelty  is  his  fiction  of 
progressive  sanctification  in  the  middle  state,  which  is  by  no  means 


494  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

to  be  interpreted  as  meaning  what  all  believers  have  held  from  the 
beginning,  that  is,  the  constant  growth  of  the  soul  into  the  likeness 
■of  its  Maker,  a  process  which  has  and  can  have  no  end  either  before 
or  after  the  final  consummation.  What  the  Professor  says  and  means 
is  the  prolongation  beyond  the  grave  of  the  efforts  and  struggles  and 
pains  by  which  the  soul  here  wages  the  spiritual  conflict,  seeking  da}' 
by  day  to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  holiness,  it  being  "  unethical  "  to 
suppose  that  this  conflict  can  be  ended  at  once  as  soon  as  the  soul 
leaves  the  body.  This  is  a  new  doctrine,  the  only  parallel  to  which 
can  be  found  in  the  Purgatory  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches, 
the  underlying  basis  of  which  is  that  as  some  men  when  they  die 
are  not  good  enough  to  go  to  heaven  and  j^et  not  bad  enough  to  be 
sent  to  perdition,  they  enter  an  intermediate  stage  in  which  they 
may  gradually,  by  the  use  of  various  means,  be  freed  from  the  soil 
and  dominion  of  sin,  and  made  meet  for  the  society  of  the  blessed. 
It  is  a  very  thin  partition  that  divides  the  doctrine  of  progressive 
sanctification  in  the  middle  state  from  the  doctrine  of  Purgatorial 
preparation  for  heaven.  The  curious  idea  is  advanced  that  the  doc- 
trine that  the  soul's  destiny  is  decided  at  death  "  makes  death  a  terror 
to  the  best  of  men."  It  was  not  so  with  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  59),  nor 
with  Paul  (Phil.  i.  23,  2  Cor.  v.  8),  nor  do  we  find  a  hint  of  the  kind 
in  any  Christian  biography.  On  the  contrary,  the  great  comfort  of 
the  believer  in  the  article  of  death  is  the  thought  that  the  days  of 
mourning,  struggle,  temptation  and  weakness  are  over,  that  he  has 
finished  his  course  and  fought  the  good  fight  to  the  end,  and  what 
remains  is  the  joyful  vision  of  Christ  and  His  ever-blessed  compan- 
ionship. The  felicitations,  therefore,  with  which  the  Address  closes, 
upon  the  prospect  of  a  new  and  better  age  about  to  come  upon  us  are 
w^holly  misplaced. 

The  foregoing  is  all  based  upotf  the  printed  Address  of  Prof. 
Briggs  and  the  Additional  Xotes  appended  to  the  second  edition. 
These  have  passed  into  history  and  will  stand  as  the  carefully  pre- 
pared and  deliberate  opinions  of  the  author.  As  such  they  are  here 
reviewed,  without  passion  but  with  deep  interest,  because  of  the  im- 
portance  of  the  subject.  For  it  is  claimed  on  one  side  that  the  recep- 
tion of  them  is  indispensable  to  the  advance  of  theology,  while  we  on 
the  other  hold  them  to  be  very  perilous  to  evangelical  truth.  As  to 
any  later  expression  of  views  on  the  part  of  the  Professor  we  have 
nothing  to  say.  The  proper  authorities  will  decide  what  is  to  be  done 
in  the  case.  Our  concern  is  only  with  the  formal  utterance  of  Broad 
Church  principles  in  one  of  the  high  places  of  an  orthodox  Church. 
This  ought  not  to  pass  without  comment.  The  duty  of  Christian 
rebuke  is  imperative,  however  unpleasant.  Hence  we  have  done  what 
in  us  lies  to  hinder  any  from  "being  carried  away  by  divers  and 
strange  teachings." 

Talbot  W.  Chambers. 

New  York. 


Date  Due 

...iiii 

0  1^  ^] 

• 

Ul- 

\  r^  1 ' 

t. 

V- 

, 

",r 

.    ^  ^      v,^ 

...uLiV 

^ 

m^\ 


iiiiiiii 


